Just a note about BSET education. The latest issue of the Journal of Engineering Technology (JET), Fall 2012 issue, Volume 29, No. 2 has several key articles about ET. Check out the article called Engineering Technology National Forum: An Action Arm of ETC for National Impact.
One key facts that emerged confirming what I said in an earlier blog is that most BSET grads are employed as engineers. This is not a surprise to most of us who have a bachelors in technology degree. I worked as an engineer for many years after the degree and so has most other BSET grads. The companies need engineers and for most available jobs the BSET is perfectly fine.
While you are looking that issue, also see the other excellent piece called On Engineering Technology Education: BS to PHD.
The JET is a publication of the ASEE. I get the print copy but you may be able to read it online at www.asee.org. If not, you need to join ASEE.
Cheers,
Lou
Monday, December 17, 2012
ETD Listserv Survey on Electronic Technology
Here is the outcome of the survey I posted to the ETD
Listserv in November. This is my
analysis and understanding.
The percentage totals for some questions do not add up to
100% because not all participants answered all questions and/or in many cases
participants selected two or more choices.
The comments to the last question are particularly
interesting and telling. Worth a read.
1.
How is your ET program doing today?
a.
Doing well and growing. 36%
b.
Healthy but flat with no growth. 41%
c.
In decline.
Losing enrollment. 10.2%
d.
Recently closed. 10.2%
This is positive news. 77% of
programs are doing OK and some growing.
The growth has more to do with local jobs and related activity. And aggressive recruiting efforts really
help. All this is in contrast to the
status of things several years ago.
There has been some improvement.
Still, I hate to see programs closing but often little can be done if
there is no jobs market for the graduates.
It’s a local problem.
2.
What factors contribute to the status of your
program?
a.
Local industry needs. 43.6%
b.
Job growth 18%
c.
Lack of jobs 12.8%
d.
Interest in new programs. 30.6%
e.
Other.
What?
a. Quality of program
and efficacy of our recruiting efforts.
b. Transfer to university.
c. Poor students.
d. Students do not
have the skills to survive the program.
e. Declining
enrollment.
f.
Only one instructor.
g. Active recruiting.
h. Students don’t know
what electronics is any more and what you can do with it.
Clearly
local industry needs are the clues to a healthy program. Develop local companies as partners and your
program can prosper. Note the 30.6%
interest in new programs. New offerings
that match job needs are a positive step to healthy program growth.
3.
What new courses or programs have you added
lately?
a.
None 23%
b.
Alternative energy (solar, wind, etc.)33.3%
c.
Electric utility 10.2%
d.
Wireless/communications 2.5%
e.
Biomedical 10.2%
f.
Other.
What?
a. BSEET
b. Networking (2)
c. Computer forensics
d. 2nd
microcontroller course
e. Arduino course (a
type of micro)
f.
EE Engineering
g. Industrial
electronics
h. Robotics (2)
i.
Data acquisition
j.
Electric/mechanical drives
k. Nanotechnology (2)
l.
Industrial maintenance.
Alternative energy programs have attracted some new enrollments in the
past several years. It is an interesting
and exciting field. Many of these new
programs came about with grant funding to support the green energy
movement. Unfortunately, as most schools
have learned, there are few if any jobs available in this field. Some do exist but in areas were the need and
availability of techs is greatest. Wind
farms find it hard to find workers but few are willing to do the tower climbing
needed in most cases. And only affluent sunny
areas can afford solar. Another field
with this problem is nanotechnology.
Grants are available to fund some courses but where are the jobs? It is OK to take the grant money and build
some courses or a program but just remember there may be no real jobs
available. Maybe in the future.
My experience shows that jobs do exist in industry and in
networking. And a second micro course is
a great idea.
4.
Have you heard of the system approach to
teaching electronics? If so what are
your thoughts?
a.
Have heard of it. 46.3%
b. Considering
it. 18%
c.
Plan to incorporate. 15.4%
d.
Have not heard about it. 7.7%
e.
Do not plan to incorporate. 5.1%
f.
Need more information. 7.7%
g. NOTES: Already using. Have used it for 20 years. Already doing it. Not entirely sold. Not sure yet.
The system approach has been around for five to eight years now and it
is surprising to see so many who have not heard of it. The majority have heard of it and some are
already using it. It is the way of the
industry at least for technicians and AAS graduates. Some do not agree with its premises but I
doubt they know the real truth about what goes on in the modern industry. Others are open minded and still willing to
evaluate the concept. If you have not
seen MATEC’s www.esyst.org website, take a look to get the full
explanation.
5.
What factors most influence what you teach or
how you update your courses and curriculum?
a.
Industry input. 77%
b.
What other schools are doing. 7.7%
c.
What the textbooks include. 18%
d.
Clearly visible industry trends. 49%
e.
Research. 5.1%
f.
Other.
What? Time available in curriculum. Advisory board. (2)
I was happy to see that 77% use industry input to help decide what to
teach. How much of this is real and not
lip service I do not know. I have seen
advisory boards recommend changes then after the meeting all is forgotten and the
status quo is preserved. In any case, it
is always a good idea to defer to local industry ideas and suggestions. Then actually implement the changes.
One problem I have seen is that some local industry representatives see
the faculty as the experts in knowing what to teach. In my experience, the faculty is competent
but not in tune with the real world of work and current technology and needed
skills.
I should have asked how faculty learns of the “clearly visible industry
trends”.
6.
Do you use a standard textbook?
a.
Yes 92.3%
b.
No. 2.5%
c.
We use print hand outs and other supplements 25.6%
d.
We use an online text and references. 10.2%
No mystery here. Most do use
standard texts at least for most courses.
There were multiple comments here saying that for some courses no texts
were available so other materials are used.
Handouts and supplements are common place and no doubt consist of new
material not in the textbooks.
7.
What are your thoughts about online courses?
a.
We have them now. 56.4%
b.
Like but do not currently use. 12.8%
c.
Will eventually adopt. 5.1%
d.
Do not like them and will not use. 10.2%
e.
For future consideration. 7.7%
f.
Cannot do labs. 25.6%
This result really surprised me.
I had no idea that so many online courses were being offered. No full degrees but multiple courses are
available. And these courses are of the
hybrid variety with some conventional lab or class activity combined with
online instruction.
There is a small group of responders that are vehemently opposed to
online work. Maybe they perceive it as a
threat. Or mostly I think they have
never tried an online course. Online
instruction is the wave of the future given the high cost of education
today. Several comments related to how
online instruction was mandated at the dean level despite any opposition.
And by the way, there is a way to do labs. Most think it cannot be done but it has been
in the past. I will have a blog entry up
on this shortly. www.electronictech.blogspot.com
8.
What is currently your greatest concern or issue
today?
a. Disappearing feeder
programs.
b. Decrease in
upcoming student populations.
c. Lack of preparation
of incoming students.
d. Availability of
jobs in local area.
e. The quality of
leadership of the dean.
f.
Program deactivation.
g.
Making sure course content is applicable to current industry
requirements.
h. Maintaining current
student count.
i.
Lack of jobs
j.
Recruiting is limited to advisors without faculty input.
k. Instrumentation and
control AAS is going strong.
l.
Need new direction from outside the college. The big picture.
m. Lack of appropriate
preparation of high school students for ET program.
n. Failure of high school
teachers to push mid-tech careers.
o. The huge gap
between the standard electronics courses and reality.
p. Sufficient numbers
of qualified students.
q. Moving into a new
building. Logistical nightmare.
r.
I am training the bottom half of the high school class, need
to get the tip half involved.
s. A lot of subjects
to add with less room left in the curriculum.
t.
Finding a balance between learning and industry needs.
u. Getting the
resources to incorporate new items.
v. Maintaining program
growth.
w. Textbooks are
mostly out of date with what industry is doing.
x. State mandated
curriculum.
y. Few system approach
textbooks available.
z. Academic level and
interest of students coming into the program.
aa. What most
industries need in an electronic technologist.
bb. The crazy ideas
from politicians and administrators for future solutions of problems.
cc. Reaching out to
potential students. We have positions in
industry we cannot fill.
These comments are priceless.
They really show what is going on and what the real concerns are. The main issues are jobs, the preparation of
students for college work, enrollment maintenance and growth, and textbooks.
Lou Frenzel
Technology Editor, Electronic
Design Magazine
Adjunct Professor, Austin
Community College
Saturday, December 15, 2012
I'm Back
It has been a while since I posted anything new. I have been busy and there has not been enough interesting new stuff to say. But that is changing. There are lots os new topics of interest, so look for some new posts in the coming weeks and next year.
Hope all of you have a happy holiday season.
Hope all of you have a happy holiday season.
Monday, May 17, 2010
The Future of the Bachelor's Degree in Technology
I want to discuss something serious. Like just where is the BSET degree going? I have always had the nagging feeling that it was not really necessary especially today. Maybe when those degrees were first offered they were just the right thing but with so many changes in electronics engineering over the years, maybe the BSET is just a redundancy.
The first bachelor's degrees in technology came along in the mid 1960's. I know. I have one called a Bachelor in Applied Science (BASc) given by the first school to award them, the University of Houston. The idea was to fill the need for jobs called "technologists". Not engineers or not technicians, technologists. Well as it turned out there never were any jobs called technologists in industry. I have never seen such a thing in my 30 plus years in industry. When I got my BASc in 1965, I was immediately hired as an engineer and all my subsequent jobs were with that title. Most employers never heard of technologists but of course knew what techs were and engineers. My BAS degree adequately prepared me to do most engineering. The only topics I did not get were statics, dynamics and thermo which I never used anyway.
The same thing is roughly true today. BSET grads mostly become engineers. Maybe more of them go into manufacturing, sales and marketing, field service but a large percentage of them do actual engineering. Don't tell those with PE licenses as they will have a hemorrhage. PEs never accept the fact that you don't actually have a PE license to do engineering work. That is especially true in electronics.
So what am I saying here? Is the BSET really necessary? Why don't we just call that degree a BSEE in applied engineering or something like that and make the BSET departments part of engineering? When I look at the curricula for EEs and ETs at the BS level they are so close that it seems silly to duplicate. Both BSEEs and BSETs take the same math and science any way, and the electronic courses mostly use the same texts and cover the same material just under a different rubric. How dumb is that? I know it is political and turf building more than anything.
Another part of the problem is that as AAS degree programs move toward a more systems approach and one less focused on circuit analysis and design they become a poorer fit for transfer to BSET programs. I say let AAS programs concentrate on the needs of technicians and industry and less on what is needed to transfer to a BSET program. I suspect the total transfers from AAS to BSET to be very small anyway. If an AAS grad wants a BS degree, he or she should go to a university offering an Industrial Technology degree. It is a better fit anyway.
What are your thoughts on this?
LF
The first bachelor's degrees in technology came along in the mid 1960's. I know. I have one called a Bachelor in Applied Science (BASc) given by the first school to award them, the University of Houston. The idea was to fill the need for jobs called "technologists". Not engineers or not technicians, technologists. Well as it turned out there never were any jobs called technologists in industry. I have never seen such a thing in my 30 plus years in industry. When I got my BASc in 1965, I was immediately hired as an engineer and all my subsequent jobs were with that title. Most employers never heard of technologists but of course knew what techs were and engineers. My BAS degree adequately prepared me to do most engineering. The only topics I did not get were statics, dynamics and thermo which I never used anyway.
The same thing is roughly true today. BSET grads mostly become engineers. Maybe more of them go into manufacturing, sales and marketing, field service but a large percentage of them do actual engineering. Don't tell those with PE licenses as they will have a hemorrhage. PEs never accept the fact that you don't actually have a PE license to do engineering work. That is especially true in electronics.
So what am I saying here? Is the BSET really necessary? Why don't we just call that degree a BSEE in applied engineering or something like that and make the BSET departments part of engineering? When I look at the curricula for EEs and ETs at the BS level they are so close that it seems silly to duplicate. Both BSEEs and BSETs take the same math and science any way, and the electronic courses mostly use the same texts and cover the same material just under a different rubric. How dumb is that? I know it is political and turf building more than anything.
Another part of the problem is that as AAS degree programs move toward a more systems approach and one less focused on circuit analysis and design they become a poorer fit for transfer to BSET programs. I say let AAS programs concentrate on the needs of technicians and industry and less on what is needed to transfer to a BSET program. I suspect the total transfers from AAS to BSET to be very small anyway. If an AAS grad wants a BS degree, he or she should go to a university offering an Industrial Technology degree. It is a better fit anyway.
What are your thoughts on this?
LF
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
New Book on the Systems Approach
You have probably been hearing about how the right way to update an AAS degree curriculum in electronics is to pursue a systems path. You can certainly read about it in one of my past posts. That approach is to begin emphasizing systems and equipment and concentrate less on components and circuits. Modern techs do not analyze or design circuits.....they are not engineers. And few if any are headed to be engineering techs even if such jobs were plentiful. Most techs today do troubleshooting, service and repair. They install and operate equipment. And the do lots of testing and measuring. Yet the current curricula is still stuck in the old "troubleshoot to the component level" thing or teaching ten ways to bias a BJT when MOSFETs clearly rule electronics these day.
So far I have not identified any system level texts to help you go the system route. But I did write a book that takes that approach. It is called Electronics Explained: The New Systems Approach to Learning Electronics. It is published by Newnes/Elsevier and is available now. You can get a copy through Amazon or Barnes & Noble. It is not a formal textbook, but more a trade book but it gives you a good look at what a text would cover and how it would cover it.
If you want to get a head start on revising to the highly touted systems approach, this book will get you started. And don't forget to go to the Esyst website that I mentioned in an earlier post. www.esyst.org.
LF
So far I have not identified any system level texts to help you go the system route. But I did write a book that takes that approach. It is called Electronics Explained: The New Systems Approach to Learning Electronics. It is published by Newnes/Elsevier and is available now. You can get a copy through Amazon or Barnes & Noble. It is not a formal textbook, but more a trade book but it gives you a good look at what a text would cover and how it would cover it.
If you want to get a head start on revising to the highly touted systems approach, this book will get you started. And don't forget to go to the Esyst website that I mentioned in an earlier post. www.esyst.org.
LF
Thursday, April 15, 2010
The Systems Approach to Electronic Technology Education
You have probably heard of this by now. Many are proposing that the teaching of electronic technology (ET) should take a more systems view rather than the circuit analysis approach that most schools use now. I am one of those who recognized this approach years ago. Employers have known about it for years but have never pushed the issue with the colleges. Yet, as technology and industry move on, it is time for the schools to adapt. Painful as it is for any school to change, it is a must if the ET program is to survive.
In a nutshell, the colleges teach a component and circuit oriented approach to electronics. Analyze discrete component circuits. Lots of calculations and even coverage of things that are no longer relevant. For example, think of how much time you devote to teach BJTs and biasing. Or teaching Karnaugh maps and TTL. Today, most circuits are ICs so who needs to know ten ways to bias a BJT? And most of those ICs are MOSFETs anyway. In the same way, most digital circuits are implemented with embedded controllers and FPGAs. TTL went away years ago anyway. Besides techs do not design or analyze these circuits anyway. It is a waste of time, especially in a 2-year program where time and efficiency rule the curriculum.
What techs really need to know today is how the equipment and systems work. Signal analysis and flow rather than circuit analysis. Block diagram analysis rather than schematics. Techs troubleshoot, service, maintain, test, measure, install, operate and otherwise work with the equipment. Repair is at the board and module level, not so much at the component level in most cases. All courses should be changed to reflect this systems approach that employers want and techs need to do the work today.
Some schools have already made some changes in this direction but more needs to be done. It is hard for faculty to discontinue what they have been doing for years. And it is hard to know exactly how to make the changes or what the changes should be. And there are no textbooks taking this approach, yet.
If you are interested in moving your ET program into the 21st century, you need to get on this bandwagon. A quick start way is to look at the work that has been done over the past 3 years on an NSF grant that funded a systems development program. Go to www.esyst.org. Lots of guidelines and detailed recommendations. It is time to change.
Lou Frenzel
In a nutshell, the colleges teach a component and circuit oriented approach to electronics. Analyze discrete component circuits. Lots of calculations and even coverage of things that are no longer relevant. For example, think of how much time you devote to teach BJTs and biasing. Or teaching Karnaugh maps and TTL. Today, most circuits are ICs so who needs to know ten ways to bias a BJT? And most of those ICs are MOSFETs anyway. In the same way, most digital circuits are implemented with embedded controllers and FPGAs. TTL went away years ago anyway. Besides techs do not design or analyze these circuits anyway. It is a waste of time, especially in a 2-year program where time and efficiency rule the curriculum.
What techs really need to know today is how the equipment and systems work. Signal analysis and flow rather than circuit analysis. Block diagram analysis rather than schematics. Techs troubleshoot, service, maintain, test, measure, install, operate and otherwise work with the equipment. Repair is at the board and module level, not so much at the component level in most cases. All courses should be changed to reflect this systems approach that employers want and techs need to do the work today.
Some schools have already made some changes in this direction but more needs to be done. It is hard for faculty to discontinue what they have been doing for years. And it is hard to know exactly how to make the changes or what the changes should be. And there are no textbooks taking this approach, yet.
If you are interested in moving your ET program into the 21st century, you need to get on this bandwagon. A quick start way is to look at the work that has been done over the past 3 years on an NSF grant that funded a systems development program. Go to www.esyst.org. Lots of guidelines and detailed recommendations. It is time to change.
Lou Frenzel
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Results of recent online survey on EET
Here is the result of my recent brief online survey of Electronics Technology. The response was excellent and I sincerely thank those of you who took the time to respond. I hope you will find the information useful. I leave the interpretation to you, however, I have provided my interpretation after the results if you are interested.
Lou Frenzel
Technology Editor, Electronic Design Magazine
Adjunct Professor, Austin Community College
1. Your school is
a. 2-year 61 %
b. 4-year 43%
Note: Total more than 100% since some institutions offer both AAS and BS.
2. Are your enrollments in electronics technology classes up or down?
a. Up 62.5%
b. Down 20.8%
c. Flat 16.7%
3. When was the last time you made significant changes to your courses or curriculum?
a. This year. 34.7%
b. 1 to 2 years ago. 26.4%
c. More than 2 years ago. 37.5%
Note: Total not 100% as some did not respond.
4. What new electronic majors or specialties have you implemented within the past 2 to 3 years?
a. Electric power/energy 20.8%
b. Wireless/communications 18%
c. Robotics 16.7%
d. Industrial/manufacturing 11.1%
e. Biomedical 16.7%
f. Other 33.3%
Note: Total is more than 100% since several indicated multiple additions. In the Other category here are those listed:
• None (Most often mentioned)
• Embedded controllers (Many mentions)
• Semi/Microelectronics
• Automotive electronics
• Networking
• Photonics
• Info tech/Computer science/programming
5. Are you familiar with the trend toward teaching a systems approach (rather than component/circuits approach) to electronics technology?
a. Yes 84.7%
b. No 9.7%
Note: Total not 100% as some did not respond.
6. Which of the following is the one most critical issue facing your college?
a. Low enrollments 38.9%
b. Retention 27.8%
c. Dated curriculum and courses 9.7%
d. Lab costs 11.1%
e. Other 18%
Note: Total is more than 100% as multiple items were selected. In the Other category the item most mentioned was budget limitations and lack of funding. Other items included bad management and uncooperative/under productive faculty.
7. What is your feeling about online electronic technology education?
a. A potential direction for the future. 52.8%
b. Looking forward to it 22.2%
c. Not in favor of it 25%
Note: Several indicated that they were already doing this in a hybrid program, lecture online and on-campus lab.
8. What is your opinion of current textbooks?
a. OK as is 25%
b. Dated but OK on the fundamentals 44.4%
c. Not relevant to current jobs 20.9%
d. Covers recent and advanced topics well 9.7%
Note: Lots of extra comments on this one.
• Too expensive.
• Lack of relevance to real world. (Multiple mentions)
• Can get along fine without text books.
• Need to go to e-books.
• Use/adapt engineering/scientific texts.
My Interpretation
I have been tracking the status of Electronic Technology for almost ten years now and have written about it extensively in this blog. My impression is that the current status is relatively positive compared to 3 to 5 years ago when enrollments were down and many colleges closed their Electronic Technology departments.
• Enrollments are definitely up. Several mentioned that the down economy was the main cause with many going back to school to improve their employability. Still, one third of enrollment are down to flat.
• Those of you who made changes in the program especially adding new majors or specialties survived the downturn of the past years and have turned their enrollment situation around.
• New majors seemed to help enrollments especially anything to do with power/energy, robotics, industrial and biomed.
• Despite a positive enrollment status, most indicated that low enrollments were the most critical issue. Retention was the second largest concern.
• The movement toward a systems approach to teaching electronics (the real world today) is clearly very well known but what I should have asked is who is doing it.
• I was surprised to see such a positive outlook for online programs. One quarter are clearly against this but anyone denying the online movement risks getting left behind. The Web/Internet is all powerful today and a key driver of our youth. It is the future.
• Two thirds indicated some dissatisfaction with the textbooks. They are dated and less relevant than in years past. Hope some publishers read this and give us some good updates or new texts.
Comments welcome.
Lou Frenzel
Lou Frenzel
Technology Editor, Electronic Design Magazine
Adjunct Professor, Austin Community College
1. Your school is
a. 2-year 61 %
b. 4-year 43%
Note: Total more than 100% since some institutions offer both AAS and BS.
2. Are your enrollments in electronics technology classes up or down?
a. Up 62.5%
b. Down 20.8%
c. Flat 16.7%
3. When was the last time you made significant changes to your courses or curriculum?
a. This year. 34.7%
b. 1 to 2 years ago. 26.4%
c. More than 2 years ago. 37.5%
Note: Total not 100% as some did not respond.
4. What new electronic majors or specialties have you implemented within the past 2 to 3 years?
a. Electric power/energy 20.8%
b. Wireless/communications 18%
c. Robotics 16.7%
d. Industrial/manufacturing 11.1%
e. Biomedical 16.7%
f. Other 33.3%
Note: Total is more than 100% since several indicated multiple additions. In the Other category here are those listed:
• None (Most often mentioned)
• Embedded controllers (Many mentions)
• Semi/Microelectronics
• Automotive electronics
• Networking
• Photonics
• Info tech/Computer science/programming
5. Are you familiar with the trend toward teaching a systems approach (rather than component/circuits approach) to electronics technology?
a. Yes 84.7%
b. No 9.7%
Note: Total not 100% as some did not respond.
6. Which of the following is the one most critical issue facing your college?
a. Low enrollments 38.9%
b. Retention 27.8%
c. Dated curriculum and courses 9.7%
d. Lab costs 11.1%
e. Other 18%
Note: Total is more than 100% as multiple items were selected. In the Other category the item most mentioned was budget limitations and lack of funding. Other items included bad management and uncooperative/under productive faculty.
7. What is your feeling about online electronic technology education?
a. A potential direction for the future. 52.8%
b. Looking forward to it 22.2%
c. Not in favor of it 25%
Note: Several indicated that they were already doing this in a hybrid program, lecture online and on-campus lab.
8. What is your opinion of current textbooks?
a. OK as is 25%
b. Dated but OK on the fundamentals 44.4%
c. Not relevant to current jobs 20.9%
d. Covers recent and advanced topics well 9.7%
Note: Lots of extra comments on this one.
• Too expensive.
• Lack of relevance to real world. (Multiple mentions)
• Can get along fine without text books.
• Need to go to e-books.
• Use/adapt engineering/scientific texts.
My Interpretation
I have been tracking the status of Electronic Technology for almost ten years now and have written about it extensively in this blog. My impression is that the current status is relatively positive compared to 3 to 5 years ago when enrollments were down and many colleges closed their Electronic Technology departments.
• Enrollments are definitely up. Several mentioned that the down economy was the main cause with many going back to school to improve their employability. Still, one third of enrollment are down to flat.
• Those of you who made changes in the program especially adding new majors or specialties survived the downturn of the past years and have turned their enrollment situation around.
• New majors seemed to help enrollments especially anything to do with power/energy, robotics, industrial and biomed.
• Despite a positive enrollment status, most indicated that low enrollments were the most critical issue. Retention was the second largest concern.
• The movement toward a systems approach to teaching electronics (the real world today) is clearly very well known but what I should have asked is who is doing it.
• I was surprised to see such a positive outlook for online programs. One quarter are clearly against this but anyone denying the online movement risks getting left behind. The Web/Internet is all powerful today and a key driver of our youth. It is the future.
• Two thirds indicated some dissatisfaction with the textbooks. They are dated and less relevant than in years past. Hope some publishers read this and give us some good updates or new texts.
Comments welcome.
Lou Frenzel
Friday, June 12, 2009
Every Electronic Product is a Computer
In case you have not already recognized this, virtually every electronic product made today is just one or more embedded controllers surrounded by the I/O and peripherals that make the product what it is. Think about it. Name one product that does not fit this model. A student of mine suggested a vacuum tube guitar amplifier and he is right. No embedded micro in there for sure. But consider any other product you use. Cell phone, automobile, iPod, TV set, CD player, and so on. Even our test equipment (like a digital oscilloscope) is computer based these days with software doing the measurement and analysis.
What I am trying to point up is that electronics centers around embedded controllers and their design and the software. Product design is more software and less hardware every day. Yet most colleges only devote one course to this topic. I keep feeling that we need to do more.
In my work as a technology editor for Electronic Design magazine, I talk to lots of engineers and travel around interviewing engineers, executives and others who design products. The core of all this work is centered on the embedded micros and all the interfaces and, of course, the software. It truly what engineers are doing.
It occurred to me a while back that many AAS degree grads could actually be good embedded designers. I have taught the embedded course in a community college many times and many students get interested and do a great job of creating embedded projects. You need to like software most of all but you do need some knowledge about all the interfaces that are used. Both are something in reach of any AAS degree student.
What I am advocating here is an AAS degree in embedded design. Take the existing curriculum and add more software and micro courses with plenty of project work making interfaces, controlling and monitoring other things, working with development systems and so on. Such a grad could really hit the ground running in an engineering setting where embedded work must be done. I am convinced that with the extra courses and plenty of real projects, any AAS grad could do what many BS degree engineers.
The big question is, would anyone hire one of these grads as an embedded designer? How would we make that happen?
Just a thought. Respond if you are interested and let me know your thoughts. Or am I just nuts and dreaming?
LF
What I am trying to point up is that electronics centers around embedded controllers and their design and the software. Product design is more software and less hardware every day. Yet most colleges only devote one course to this topic. I keep feeling that we need to do more.
In my work as a technology editor for Electronic Design magazine, I talk to lots of engineers and travel around interviewing engineers, executives and others who design products. The core of all this work is centered on the embedded micros and all the interfaces and, of course, the software. It truly what engineers are doing.
It occurred to me a while back that many AAS degree grads could actually be good embedded designers. I have taught the embedded course in a community college many times and many students get interested and do a great job of creating embedded projects. You need to like software most of all but you do need some knowledge about all the interfaces that are used. Both are something in reach of any AAS degree student.
What I am advocating here is an AAS degree in embedded design. Take the existing curriculum and add more software and micro courses with plenty of project work making interfaces, controlling and monitoring other things, working with development systems and so on. Such a grad could really hit the ground running in an engineering setting where embedded work must be done. I am convinced that with the extra courses and plenty of real projects, any AAS grad could do what many BS degree engineers.
The big question is, would anyone hire one of these grads as an embedded designer? How would we make that happen?
Just a thought. Respond if you are interested and let me know your thoughts. Or am I just nuts and dreaming?
LF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)